TREASURY

ECOFIN

George Osborne: A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 11 March 2014. The following items are on the agenda to be discussed.
	Follow-up to the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and governors
	The presidency and the Commission will debrief the Council on the main outcomes of the G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors’ meeting in Sydney. The Government are supportive of the Australian G20 agenda, particularly the focus on strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
	Preparation of the European Council on 20-21 March 2014—economic elements of the EU 2030 energy and climate framework
	Council will have an exchange of views on economic elements of the EU 2030 energy and climate framework, with a view to input to the March European Council. The Government support the EU 2030 framework, which should provide certainty for investors and support the EU’s cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy.
	Savings taxation
	Council will seek to adopt the amended savings taxation directive, as requested by the European Council in December 2013. The Government continue to support the adoption of the amended savings directive as a means of advancing the automatic exchange of information agenda.
	Current legislative proposals
	The presidency will provide information on the ongoing work on financial services dossiers.
	Single resolution mechanism
	The Council will examine the state of play and may revise the mandate for the presidency to finalise negotiations with the European Parliament. The Government welcome the progress on this file since general approach was reached at ECOFIN in December 2013, and will be ensuring that it fully respects the unity and integrity of the single market.

Off-payroll Engagements

Danny Alexander: Today, I am announcing the conclusions of HM Treasury’s evaluation of Departments’ compliance with the rules governing off-payroll appointments in central Government.
	New, tighter rules were established in May 2012 when I published the review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees. This review revealed that more than 2,400 public sector appointees were engaged off-payroll in central Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies (ALBs).
	Off-payroll workers play an important role in helping Departments meet short-term needs for specialist advice and interim service. The majority of these types of arrangements will have been in place for legitimate commercial reasons.
	However, the number of off-payroll engagements found in the review, and the length and size of these contracts, suggested it was possible for artificial tax minimisation to be taking place.
	The Government are committed to tackling tax avoidance and evasion and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax. It is essential that Government Departments are able to assure themselves that their off-payroll workers are meeting their tax obligations.
	The recommendations of the May 2012 review mean that the Departments’ most senior staff must now be on payroll, and Departments will have stronger powers to seek assurance in relation to the tax arrangements of their long-term, high-paid contractors.
	In May of last year, I asked the Treasury to evaluate compliance with these new rules. The results of this evaluation are summarised below, along with any actions subsequently being taken.
	Below board-level off-payroll engagements
	The rules for new off-payroll engagements apply where the engagement is for more than six months with a daily rate above £220—or £58,200 per year. All new engagements from 23 August 2012 meeting these criteria must include contractual provisions that allow the Department to seek assurance that the worker is paying the right amount of tax and national insurance contributions and to terminate the contract if assurance is not provided. For any individuals where their engagement has been terminated, ended as a result of the assurance process, or ended after assurance was sought but before it was received, Departments have been asked to provide personal details of the worker to HMRC for further investigation of tax avoidance.
	In accordance with the guidance, Departments adopted a risk-based approach in deciding which contractors to seek formal assurance from. Departments sought assurance on the tax affairs of 1,940 of their contractors and received satisfactory assurances from 1,815 of these engagements. In 125 cases contracts were terminated or came to an end before assurance was received.
	Further details can be found in the table annexed.
	The results of this review suggest that the majority of core Departments are operating the new rules effectively. This has resulted in a number of engagements, where adequate assurance was not provided, being brought to an end. Departments have referred all these individuals’ details to HMRC for further investigation.
	Board-level and senior appointments
	The guidelines set out in May 2012 also specified that, regardless of their tax arrangements, board-level officials and those with significant financial responsibility should be on the payroll of the Department or other employing body. This is unless there are exceptional circumstances, and such exceptions should not exist for longer than six months.
	As a result of the recent review, I can announce that HM Treasury have uncovered three cases which have breached these rules. As a result I will be imposing sanctions on the resource budgets of two Departments equalling a total of £500,580.
	I will be imposing a sanction of £102,080 on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a breach of the guidelines at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This related
	to a senior financial officer who was originally engaged off-payroll by AHVLA and brought onto payroll more than six months after being engaged.
	I will also be imposing a sanction of £398,500 on the Department for Transport for two breaches. This relates to the chief executive and finance director at Directly Operated Railways Ltd who were originally engaged off-payroll and brought onto the payroll more than six months after the guidance came into effect.
	Where this review has encountered below board-level appointments with significant financial responsibility that are in place to maintain the delivery of critical and time-limited projects, they have not been required to be on the payroll. This is subject to the strict requirement that all such engagements should be subjected to the assurance process to determine that they are paying the right amount of tax.
	The Ministry of Defence has also brought to my attention two non-executive board members who have not been brought onto payroll within six months of the guidance coming into effect. The value of the salaries in question was considerably below the £58,200 annual rate at which we are normally interested in similar cases, the individuals involved have provided assurance as to their tax arrangements, and effective actions have now been taken to resolve these appointments. I have therefore decided not to impose sanctions in these cases.
	It is also important that these rules are complied with in the wider public sector. I have, therefore, asked the Secretary of State for Health to conduct a full investigation into all senior off-payroll NHS appointments to ensure that all employers are taking adequate action to prevent possible tax avoidance.
	The public sector needs to demonstrate the highest standards of integrity and it is essential that Government employers are able to assure themselves that their senior and highly paid staff are meeting their tax obligations. Each Department is responsible for seeking assurance as to the tax arrangements of the off-payroll appointees in the Department and arm’s length bodies, and judging whether the evidence presented is satisfactory to demonstrate that the appointee is meeting their tax obligations.
	I will continue to monitor compliance with the HMT guidelines and intend to conduct a similar review for the 2013-14 financial year. I will report to The House on these conclusions.
	Annex 1: New off-payroll engagements between 23 August 2012 and 31 March 2013, for more than £220 per day and for more than six months
	
		
			   Of which 
			 Department and ALBs Number of new engagements for whom assurance was sought (as of 31 March 2013) Number for whom assurance was requested and received Number for whom assurance was requested and not received 
			 BIS (core) 46 37 9 
			 BIS ALBs 665 612 53 
			 British Council 63 50 13 
			 CO 26 26 0 
			 DCLG (core) 7 7 0 
		
	
	
		
			 DCLG ALBs 2 2 0 
			 DCMS (core) 24 24 0 
			 DCMS ALBs 37 33 4 
			 DECC (core) 15 15 0 
			 DECC ALBs 1 1 0 
			 DEFRA 107 101 6 
			 DfE (core) 200 195 5 
			 DfE ALBs 0 0 0 
			 DFID 0 0 0 
			 DFT 39 36 3 
			 DH (ALBs) 217 217 0 
			 DH (core) 19 19 0 
			 DWP (core) 14 2 12 
			 DWP ALBs 3 3 0 
			 FCO (core) 10 10 0 
			 FCO Services 120 120 0 
			 HMRC 3 3 0 
			 HMT 16 14 2 
			 HO 99 98 1 
			 MOD (core) 0 0 0 
			 MOD ALBs 61 60 1 
			 MOJ 90 76 14 
			 NS&I 11 11 0 
			 OFGEM 0 0 0 
			 OFQUAL 5 5 0 
			 OFSTED 4 2 2 
			 OFT 0 0 0 
			 OFWAT 1 1 0 
			 ORR 0 0 0 
			 TSOL 0 0 0 
			 UKEF 4 4 0 
			 UKSA (ONS) 31 31 0 
			 Total 1,940 1,815 125 
		
	
	Notes and additional information provided during the review:
	This table has been compiled using Departments’ 2012-13 annual reports and accounts, and additional up-to-date information provided by Departments to the Treasury during the review. For 2012-13 there were 2,260 contracts in scope. Departments took a risk-based approach in seeking assurance on these.
	Annex 2: Acronyms
	ALB—arm’s length body
	BIS—Department of Business, Innovation and Skills
	CO—Cabinet Office
	DCLG—Department for Communities and Local Government
	DCMS—Department for Culture, Media and Sport
	DECC—Department for Energy and Climate Change
	DEFRA—Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	DfE—Department for Education
	DFID—Department for International Development
	DFT—Department for Transport
	DH—Department of Health
	DWP—Department for Work and Pensions
	FCO—The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
	FCOS—The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services
	HMRC—HM Revenue and Customs
	HMT—HM Treasury
	HO—Home Office
	MOD—Ministry of Defence
	MOJ—Ministry of Justice
	NS&I—National Savings and Investment
	OFGEM—Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
	OFQUAL—Office of Qualifications and Examinations
	OFSTED—The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
	OFT—Office of Fair Trading
	OFWAT—The Water Services Regulation Authority
	ORR—Office of Rail Regulation
	TSOL—Treasury Solicitor’s Department
	UKEF—UK Export Finance
	UKSA—UK Statistics Authority

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations

Brandon Lewis: The Government have laid before Parliament the Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014 which makes the transitional provision between the existing local government pension schemes and the new scheme which will come into force on 1 April 2014. They preserve benefits already accrued by scheme members under the existing schemes and make provision to ensure that members within 10 years of their normal retirement age on 31 March 2012 do not suffer any detriment.
	Together with the local government pension scheme regulations 2013 introduced in September last year, the introduction of the regulations completes the regulatory framework for the new local government pension scheme. Implementing the new scheme a year ahead of the other major public service pension schemes represents a major achievement; we are very grateful to the Local Government Association, the scheme’s shadow advisory board and other key interested parties for the help and co-operation they have given to ensure the successful implementation of the new scheme.
	In my written statement of 19 December 2012, Official Report, column 105WS, we announced our intention to abolish taxpayer-funded pensions for councillors. A statutory consultation to this effect was undertaken between April and July 2013.
	The regulations we have laid also abolish such taxpayer-funded pensions for new councillors in England and other elected office holders from 1 April 2014, and terminate access for existing councillors at the end of their current fixed term of office (for example, from
	May 2014, in relation to councillors with elections this year). The rationale for the reforms is outlined in my statement from December 2012.
	Taken together, I believe these necessary reforms deliver on the coalition Government’s pledge to reform public sector pensions and provide a fair deal for public service workers and taxpayers. The reforms ensure that local government pensions are fair, affordable and sustainable in the long term, particularly in the light of changing demographics, and are justifiable to taxpayers who foot the bill for employer contributions.
	I have placed copies of the associated documents in the Library of the House.

CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT

Contingencies Fund Advance

Maria Miller: I would like to inform the House that, as for a number of Departments at this time of year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport requires an advance to discharge its commitments which are set out in its supplementary estimate 2013-14, published on 12 February 2014 as HC 1006—CG supply estimates, supplementary estimates.
	Parliamentary approval for additional net cash of £262 million for existing services has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £40 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
	The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

EU Energy Council

Edward Davey: I am writing to report discussions at the Energy Council in Brussels on 4 March, where I represented the UK.
	The Council discussed the Commission’s communication on energy prices and costs in Europe. Ministers welcomed the communication and noted the difference in energy prices between the EU and the rest of the world. I and a number of other Ministers noted that evidence, including from the International Energy Agency, showed that climate policy had had little impact on energy prices across Europe. I argued that the EU could best enhance competitiveness in Europe by completing the internal energy market, investing in research, rationalising the EU’s approach to state aid, developing indigenous supplies—including shale gas—and concluding an energy chapter to the EU-US free trade agreement. Other member states argued that the new climate and energy framework, if not carefully designed, would have a significant impact on energy prices.
	The majority of member states accepted that renewable energy subsidies should be rationalised as part of the state aid modernisation process but were concerned that there was a risk of contradiction between European energy policy and the state aid guidelines.
	The Council then debated the 2030 climate and energy framework. The presidency asked member states for their views on three issues: how the Commission’s proposals would contribute to the EU’s energy objectives of sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply; the new governance system; and the proposed set of indicators. The Commissioner argued that the 40% greenhouse gas target was very ambitious. The majority of member states endorsed a greenhouse gas target of 40%. I called for a 50% target in the event of an ambitious international agreement.
	A number of member states called for more ambitious binding EU targets for renewable energy—of 30 to 40%—and binding energy efficiency targets. Others called for a technology neutral approach with no EU and national-level targets for renewables and energy efficiency. I and others supported an EU renewables target of 27%, on the condition that they would not become binding national targets.
	A majority of member states argued that the new governance system should not encroach on the ability of member states to determine their own energy mix. On indicators, the majority of member states were positive about the indicators for competitiveness and security of supply.
	The Commissioner informed the Council of the role of energy in the crisis in Ukraine; 14% of Europe’s gas needs were met by gas that had crossed Ukraine. However, Europe was in a better position to deal with a gas crisis than it was in 2009 when supplies through Ukraine were last interrupted as it had diversified supply and built more storage facilities. A number of member states emphasised the need to support Ukraine and the importance of diversifying the EU’s energy mix to improve security of supply.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Natural Capital

Owen Paterson: The Natural Capital Committee has today published its second state of natural capital report. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The committee was established in 2012 as an independent advisory body to Government. It formally reports to the Economic Affairs Committee and was one of the commitments in the Government’s 2011 natural environment White Paper (NEWP).
	The role of the Natural Capital Committee is to:
	provide advice on when, where and how natural assets are being used unsustainably;
	advise the Government on how they should prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital, so that public and private activity is focused where it will have greatest impact on improving well-being in our society; and
	advise the Government on research priorities to improve future advice and decisions on protecting and enhancing natural capital.
	The three key messages made in the report are:
	Some assets are currently not being used sustainably. The benefits we derive from them are at risk, which has significant economic implications;
	There are substantial economic benefits to be gained from maintaining and improving natural assets. The benefits will be maximised if their full value is incorporated into decision-making; and
	A long-term plan is necessary to maintain and improve natural capital, thereby delivering well being and economic growth.
	The Government intend to provide a response to the committee’s report once they have considered its content fully.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

NATO Parliamentary Assembly (Membership)

William Hague: My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has replaced my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

HEALTH

NHS Charges

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement:
	Regulations have been laid before the House to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2014.
	This Government have made tough decisions to protect the NHS budget and increase it in real terms, but charges for some items remain an important source of revenue to support the delivery of high-quality NHS services. This is particularly important given the increasing demands on the NHS, with spending on medicines alone almost doubling since 2000.
	Over 90% of prescription items are dispensed free. This includes extensive exemptions from charging for people on low incomes, such as those on specific benefits or through the NHS low-income scheme. We want to ensure that, of those who pay, people with the greatest need are protected, such as those with long-term conditions. As such, we have decided to freeze the costs of both prescription prepayment certificates (PPCs) for the next two years. This means the price of the 12-month PPC has been frozen for the lifetime of this Parliament. The three-month certificate will therefore remain at £29.10 this year and next, and the cost of the annual certificate will remain at £104.
	This year, we have increased the single prescription charge by 20p from £7.85 to £8.05 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. We also intend to increase the charge by 20p to £8.25 in the following year.
	The regulations will also increase NHS dental charges from 1 April 2014. The dental charge payable for a band one course of treatment will increase by 50p from £18 to £18.50. The dental
	charge for a band 2 course of treatment will increase by £1.50 from £49 to £50.50. The charge for a band 3 course of treatment will increase by £5 from £214 to £219.
	Dental charges represent an important contribution to the overall cost of dental services. The exact amount raised will be dependent upon the level and type of primary dental care services commissioned by NHS England and the proportion of charge paying patients who attend dentists and the level of treatment they require.
	Charges will also be increased, by an overall 2.7%, for wigs and fabric supports.
	The range of NHS optical vouchers available to children, people on low incomes and individuals with complex sight problems are also being increased in value. In order to continue to provide help with the cost of spectacles and contact lenses, optical voucher values will rise by an overall 2%.
	Details of the revised charges are in the following tables.
	
		
			 NHS Charges - England 
			  New Charge (£) 
			 Prescription Charges  
			 Single item £8.05 
			 3 month PPC (no change) £29.10 
			 12 month PPC (no change) £104.00 
			   
			 Dental Charges  
			 Band 1 course of treatment £18.50 
			 Band 2 Course of treatment £50.50 
			 Band 3 course of treatment £219.00 
			   
			 Wigs and Fabrics  
			 Surgical Brassiere £27.05 
			 Abdominal or spinal support £40.85 
			 Stock modacrylic wig £66.70 
			 Partial human hair wig £176.65 
			 Full bespoke human hair wig £258.35 
		
	
	
		
			 Optical Voucher Values from 1 April 2014 
			  Type of Optical Appliance Value 
			    
			 A Glasses with single vision lenses: spherical power of ≤ 6 dioptres, cylindrical power of ≤ 2 dioptres. £38.30 
			 B Glasses with single vision lenses: £58.10 
			  - spherical power of > 6 dioptres but < 10 dioptres, cylindrical power of ≤ 6 dioptres;  
			  - spherical power of < 10 dioptres, cylindrical power of > 2 dioptres but ≤ 6 dioptres.  
			 C Glasses with single vision lenses: £85.10 
			  - spherical power of ≥ 10 dioptres but ≤ 14 dioptres, cylindrical power ≤ 6 dioptres.  
			 D Glasses with single vision lenses: £192.20 
			  - spherical power of > 14 dioptres with any cylindrical power;  
			  - cylindrical power of > 6 dioptres with any spherical power.  
			 E Glasses with bifocal lenses: £66.10 
			  - spherical power of ≤ 6 dioptres, cylindrical power of ≤ 2 dioptres.  
			 F Glasses with bifocal lenses; £84.00 
			  - spherical power of > 6 dioptres but < 10 dioptres, cylindrical power of ≤ 6 dioptres;  
			  - spherical power of < 10 dioptres, cylindrical power of > 2 dioptres but ≤ 6 dioptres.  
			 G Glasses with bifocal lenses: £109.00 
		
	
	
		
			  - spherical power of ≥ 10 dioptres but ≤ 14 dioptres, cylindrical power ≤ 6 dioptres.  
			 H Glasses with prism-controlled bifocal lenses of any power or with bifocal lenses: £211.30 
			  - spherical power of > 14 dioptres with any cylindrical power;  
			  - cylindrical power of > 6 dioptres with any spherical power.  
			 I (HES) Glasses not falling within any of paragraphs 1 to 8 for which a prescription is given in consequence of a testing of sight by an NHS trust. £196.80 
			 J Contact lenses for which a prescription is given in consequence of a sight test by an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust. £55.80

HOME DEPARTMENT

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Theresa May: The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 3 and 4 March in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, attended on behalf of the Scottish Administration. The following items were discussed.
	The interior day began with a debate on the new Europol regulation. Member states welcomed the good progress made in the Europol negotiations, but agreed that the proposed merger between the European Police College (CEPOL) and Europol should not take place. The Commission (Malmström) defended its initial proposal to merge the two agencies, but acknowledged the importance that both the Council and European Parliament attached to keeping them separate.
	Member states were asked whether the Commission should be invited to propose a new regulation to update CEPOL’s tasks and take account of the Lisbon treaty. The UK, while agreeing that CEPOL and Europol should not be merged, questioned whether there was a genuine need for further reform of CEPOL (other than agreement of the member state initiative currently being negotiated to approve its relocation to Budapest). Some other member states agreed that any reform should not be brought forward simply for the sake of new legislation. However, the majority agreed that a new regulation should be proposed, and the Commission undertook to do this in due course.
	The Council then discussed the replacement for the Stockholm programme (the EU’s five-year JHA work programme, which is due to be replaced at the June European Council). The Commission stated that its forthcoming communication on the new programme, due to be published later this month, would contain provisions on facilitating migrants’ access to the labour market and the mutual recognition of asylum decisions.
	Some member states argued for a “burden sharing” mechanism, under which asylum seekers would be relocated from member states whose systems were deemed to be
	under pressure, but others felt solidarity was best demonstrated through practical co-operation. Some member states called for the EU’s common visa policy to be strengthened, for the establishment of an EU electronic system for travel authorisation (ESTA), for more automated criminal record exchanges and for the Commission to maintain its focus on anti-corruption. While encouraging the programme to focus on practical co-operation, the UK welcomed the focus of the programme on strengthening the external border, trafficking in human beings and counter-radicalisation but called for it also to tackle the abuse of free movement. The UK noted that the Commission had accepted that the issue of abuse of free movement was within the scope of the JHA and that a number of member states had asked for it to be included in the programme. With the support of some other member states, the UK stressed the importance of an EU-wide passenger name records system. Finally, the UK emphasised the need for the Council to have a key role in determining the programme.
	The presidency summarised the emerging areas of consensus as a preference for quality over quantity when considering legislation, an evidence-based evaluation process, increasing practical co-operation, coherence between the internal and external aspects of justice and home affairs and action to tackle trafficking in human beings, cyber-crime and terrorism, and to return those with no right to remain in the EU.
	Before lunch, the mobility partnership with Tunisia was signed by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.
	A discussion took place over lunch on co-operation in the area of returns. The UK agreed that EU agreements could add value in some cases, but stressed that individual member states’ bilateral returns arrangements could be more effective in other cases, and that one size did not fit all. The UK agreed that it was important to share best practice and support approaches that had been shown to work, such as assisted voluntary returns programmes.
	The Council then discussed migratory pressures, and in particular the Task Force Mediterranean measures that were agreed following last year’s tragedy in Lampedusa. Ministers received presentations from the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on recent trends at the external borders, and asylum pressures, with a particular focus on developments in Syria.
	The UK, supported by some other member states, called for clear time frames to be put in place for ensuring that the actions agreed under Task Force Mediterranean were carried out. The UK reiterated its commitment to support information campaigns in countries of origin or transit, to dissuade individuals from travelling illegally to the EU. Some other member states called for more assistance for member states facing migratory pressures.
	Under AOB the Council briefly discussed the situation in Ukraine. The Commission outlined possible actions that would be taken, including the acceleration of dialogue on visas with the new Government and a possible mobility partnership.
	The presidency gave legislative updates on the draft directives on intra-corporate transfers, seasonal workers and students and researchers (none of which the UK has opted in to), and on the draft regulations on Schengen
	visa policy, operational rules for Frontex maritime operations and on the smart borders package (from all of which the UK is excluded as they build on those parts of the Schengen acquis in which we do not take part).
	Finally, during the AOB in the mixed committee, Switzerland gave a brief update on the legal implications of its recent referendum on migration by EU nationals.
	The justice day, attended for the UK by the Justice Secretary, started with a lengthy state of play debate on the proposed general data protection regulation. The Commission reminded Ministers of the importance of the proposals, but the presidency accepted that further work is required at technical level before any text could be agreed. Ministers agreed that questions on international transfers of personal data, pseudonymisation of personal data, data portability and the relationship between “data controllers” and “data processors” should be referred back to the official-level experts’ group.
	Next, the presidency sought views on three core questions regarding the proposal to create a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The UK has not opted in to this measure and believes the creation of the EPPO to be unnecessary. We did not intervene in the debate. The first question concerned structure: the clear majority of member states who intervened favoured including a college in some form, comprised of prosecutors appointed by the participating member states. Secondly, views were sought on the EPPO’s jurisdiction. The vast majority of intervening member states thought the EPPO should not have exclusive competence over minor cases of fraud against the Union’s financial interests, where it would often be more efficient and proportionate for these to be dealt with at national level. The final question, concerning the protection of individual rights in EPPO proceedings, had been added at the Commission’s request. While Ministers who intervened agreed with the proposition that individual rights merited the “highest standard of protection” there was a wide range of views on how to achieve this, with a number disagreeing that it was achieved by the Commission’s proposal. Vice-president Reding said she would ask the President of the European Council to add the EPPO to the Justice and Home Affairs matters which would be discussed at the June European Council. The presidency concluded that a clear majority favoured including a college in some form and that minor cases should primarily be dealt with at national level, but that more discussion was needed on procedural safeguards.
	During lunch, Ministers exchanged views on the proposed regulation simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. While there was support in principle to the idea of reducing bureaucratic burdens associated with the legalisation of documents in different member states, there was general consensus that the Commission’s proposal raised a number of practical implementation issues. In particular, the UK remains concerned about the possible costs of the proposal.
	After lunch, the presidency asked the Council to consider various questions on the proposed directive on the rights of children in criminal proceedings. Options on the approach were presented and the Council gave opinions on which of the options were preferred, with the aim that these could be helpful to steer ongoing negotiations in Council. The first question asked whether the directive should still apply, in whole or in part, to
	persons who cease being minors during the course of proceedings. There was a difference of opinion on this question with a number of member states agreeing with the UK view that the directive should not apply at all after a suspect becomes an adult. The issue was remitted back to the technical level to be considered further. On the question of whether minors should be able to waive the right to a lawyer, the majority of member states seemed to favour the mandatory presence of a lawyer, although many thought there should be exceptions possible in minor cases. Again, this was remitted back for further technical level discussion. Finally, on the question of how the child’s right to privacy and the right to open justice should be balanced and specifically whether trials involving minors should be held in public or private, the majority view was that this should be decided by national law and this was agreed as the principle to guide further consideration of these aspects of the proposal.
	Then the presidency summarised emerging areas of consensus on the future of justice policy in the EU in advance of the European Council adopting strategic guidelines in June. These included quality of legislation over quantity; ongoing evaluation of legislation; mutual recognition at the heart of the Union’s justice policy; and coherence between internal and external policies. Differing views remained on further approximation of criminal law, including via codification of existing instruments, and some further assessment was needed on the role of fundamental rights and the rule of law in specific areas. Commissioner Reding introduced the main thinking behind the forthcoming Commission communication on this matter, which centred on the objectives of trust by citizens in Government decision-making, mobility and growth. She said that codification of EU law should remain a guiding principle.
	The UK, together with certain other member states issued a note of warning over further codification. The UK also reiterated its call for a strong Council ownership over eventual guidelines. The UK could not agree with some of the Commission’s proposals, including the reference to creating a common justice area by 2020. For the UK, the focus was on practical co-operation, implementation and evaluation. Specifically, implementation of existing EU measures to return prisoners to their countries of origin, and to exchange criminal records, were priorities for the UK.
	Commissioner Reding then set out her plans to produce a 2014 justice scoreboard later this month. She explained that for 2014, the Commission would use the same
	indicators and scope as the 2013 scoreboard, while taking into account the comments of the European Parliament. Subsequently, in agreeing Council conclusions on civil and commercial justice systems, the Council set out the significant concerns of member states about the approach adopted by the Commission on the scoreboard and reiterating respect for independence of the judiciary.
	The presidency provided updates on a number of legislative files, including counterfeiting the euro, the European account preservation order and the Brussels I (patent) amendment. These instruments should be approved by the European Parliament at plenary in April and subsequently adopted by the Council. Work on the insolvency regulation, supported strongly by the UK to support a rescue culture for businesses, would continue as a priority.

NORTHERN IRELAND

On-the-Runs Scheme

Theresa Villiers: I am today informing the House that, following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the right hon. Lady Justice Hallett DBE has been appointed to conduct an independent review of the administrative scheme to deal with so-called “on-the-runs” (OTRs).
	On 25 February, Official Report, column 16WS, and on 28 February, Official Report, column 38WS, I laid before the House statements relating to the decision of Mr Justice Sweeney, sitting in the Crown court, in the case of John Downey.
	In light of the error identified in the case of John Downey, the Prime Minister announced on 27 February that he would appoint a judge to provide an independent review of the administrative scheme.
	The terms of reference of the review are:
	to produce a full public account of the operation and extent of the administrative scheme for OTRs;
	to determine whether any letters sent through the scheme contained errors; and
	to make recommendation as necessary on this or related matters that are drawn to the attention of the inquiry.
	Lady Justice Hallett is asked to make every effort to meet the timetable of conducting the inquiry and reporting to me by the end of May 2014, for the purpose of its full publication. In any event, the review will conclude by the end of June 2014.